It was not an unlawful discriminatory provision to restrict those who might take part in professional sports activities in another member state to be first authorised or selected by their own national federation where such competition was not on a national representative team level. If it was derived from a proper need inherent in the organisation of such a competition it could be proper. A selection system might favour some athletes over others, but need not constitute a restriction on the provision of services: ‘a rule requiring professional or semi-professional athletes or persons aspiring to take part in a professional or semi-professional activity to have been authorised or selected by their federation in order to be able to participate in a high-level international sports competition, which does not involve national teams competing against each other, does not in itself, as long as it derives from a need inherent in the organisation of such a competition, constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 49 (ex 59) of the Treaty.’
Times 19-Apr-2000, C-51/96, C-191/97,  ECR I-2549,  EUECJ C-191/97,  EUECJ C-51/96
Cited – Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2004
ECJ Competition – Freedom to provide services – Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Purely sporting legislation
The claimants were athletes who complained that . .
Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79891